THE EFFECT OF DIAMETER OF LARGEST RESIDUAL DISEASE ON SURVIVAL AFTER PRIMARY CYTOREDUCTIVE SURGERY IN PATIENTS WITH SUBOPTIMAL RESIDUAL EPITHELIAL OVARIAN-CARCINOMA

被引:550
作者
HOSKINS, WJ
MCGUIRE, WP
BRADY, MF
HOMESLEY, HD
CREASMAN, WT
BERMAN, M
BALL, H
BEREK, JS
机构
[1] MEM SLOAN KETTERING CANC CTR,DEPT SURG,GYNECOL SERV,NEW YORK,NY 10021
[2] JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV,CTR ONCOL,BALTIMORE,MD 21205
[3] CORNELL UNIV,COLL MED,NEW YORK,NY
[4] ROSWELL PK CANC INST,GYNECOL ONCOL GRP,BUFFALO,NY
[5] WAKE FOREST UNIV,DEPT OBSTET & GYNECOL,WINSTON SALEM,NC
[6] WAKE FOREST UNIV,CTR COMPREHENS CANC,GYNECOL ONCOL SECT,WINSTON SALEM,NC
[7] MED UNIV S CAROLINA,DEPT OBSTET & GYNECOL,CHARLESTON,SC 29425
[8] UNIV CALIF IRVINE,DEPT OBSTET & GYNECOL,DIV GYNECOL ONCOL,IRVINE,CA
[9] TUFTS UNIV NEW ENGLAND MED CTR,DEPT OBSTET & GYNECOL,DIV GYNECOL ONCOL,BOSTON,MA 02111
[10] TUFTS UNIV,SCH MED,BOSTON,MA 02111
[11] UNIV CALIF LOS ANGELES,SCH MED,JONSSON COMPREHENS CANC CTR,DEPT OBSTET & GYNECOL,LOS ANGELES,CA 90024
关键词
ADVANCED OVARIAN CANCER; RESIDUAL DISEASE; CYTOREDUCTIVE SURGERY;
D O I
10.1016/S0002-9378(94)70090-7
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: The Gynecologic Oncology Group has divided patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer into those with optimal residual cancer, in which the maximum diameter of residual is less than or equal to 1 cm, and suboptimal residual cancer, in which the residual disease is > 1 cm. Within the optimal group of patients there is a survival difference between patients with microscopic residual disease and those with any macroscopic disease less than or equal to 1 cm. No analysis of the effect of various residual disease diameters in patients with residual disease greater than or equal to 1 cm has been performed. This study evaluates the effect of residual disease diameter in patients with suboptimal disease entered on a randomized trial of intense versus standard chemotherapy. STUDY DESIGN: Gynecologic Oncology Group protocol 97 compared cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2) for eight courses with the same drugs at 100 mg/m(2) and 1000 mg/m(2) for four courses, respectively. There was no difference in progression-free interval or survival between the two arms. Or the 458 stage III (with residual disease > 1 cm) and stage IV patients entered in this study, 294 stage III patients comprise the current analysis. Surgical reporting forms, operation reports, and pathology reports were reviewed to determine initial greatest tumor diameter and residual tumor diameter. Patients were grouped by residual diameter. Multivariate analysis considered residual diameter of disease, age, histologic characteristics, performance status, and ascites. An adjusted relative hazard of dying of ovarian cancer was calculated for each residual disease group. RESULTS: Patients ranged in age from 20 to 80 years, with a median of 60 years. All patients were Gynecologic Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2. Fifty-two percent had grade 3 tumors, and 39% and 9%, respectively, had grade 2 or 1 tumors. All patients had stage III disease. Ninety percent had serous, endometrioid, or mixed epithelial cell type tumors. Multivariate analysis revealed a relative risk of dying as follows: residual disease < 2 cm, relative risk 1.00; 2 to 2.9 cm, relative risk 1.90; 3 to 3.9 cm, relative risk 1.91; 4 to 5.9 cm, relative risk 1.74; 6 to 7.9 cm, relative risk 1.85; 8 to 9.9 cm, relative risk 2.16; greater than or equal to 10 cm, relative risk 1.82. The difference in survival between those with < 2 cm residual disease and those with greater than or equal to 2 cm residual disease was significant (p < 0.01). There is no significant difference in the risk of dying between groups with residual disease greater than or equal to 2 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with suboptimal (> 1 cm residual disease) epithelial ovarian cancer, those who have small diameter residual disease (< 2 cm) tend to survive longer than those who have larger residual disease. Among those with larger residual disease, size does not affect prognosis appreciably.
引用
收藏
页码:974 / 980
页数:7
相关论文
共 13 条
  • [1] CANCER STATISTICS, 1993
    BORING, CC
    SQUIRES, TS
    TONG, T
    [J]. CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 1993, 43 (01) : 7 - 26
  • [2] A RANDOMIZED TRIAL COMPARING CISPLATIN PLUS CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE VERSUS CISPLATIN, DOXORUBICIN, AND CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE IN ADVANCED OVARIAN-CANCER
    CONTE, PF
    BRUZZONE, M
    CHIARA, S
    SERTOLI, MR
    DAGA, MG
    RUBAGOTTI, A
    CONIO, A
    RUVOLO, M
    ROSSO, R
    SANTI, L
    CARNINO, F
    COTTINI, M
    MOSSETTI, C
    GUERCIO, E
    GATTI, M
    SILIQUINI, PN
    PRELATO, ML
    DURANDO, C
    GIACCONE, G
    CALCIATI, A
    FARININI, D
    CENTONZE, M
    RUGIATI, S
    PARODI, G
    MESSINEO, M
    STORACE, A
    BERNARDINI, G
    MISURALE, F
    ALESSANDRI, S
    CASINI, M
    RAGNI, N
    FOGLIA, G
    BENTIVOGLIO, G
    PESCETTO, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1986, 4 (06) : 965 - 971
  • [3] DAY TG, 1975, SEMIN ONCOL, V2, P361
  • [4] THERAPY OF STAGE-III (OPTIMAL) EPITHELIAL CARCINOMA OF THE OVARY WITH MELPHALAN OR MELPHALAN PLUS CORYNEBACTERIUM PARVUM - (A GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY GROUP-STUDY)
    GALL, S
    BUNDY, B
    BEECHAM, J
    WHITNEY, C
    HOMESLEY, H
    LIFSHITZ, S
    ADCOCK, LL
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 1986, 25 (01) : 26 - 36
  • [5] THE INFLUENCE OF CYTOREDUCTIVE SURGERY ON RECURRENCE-FREE INTERVAL AND SURVIVAL IN SMALL-VOLUME STAGE-III EPITHELIAL OVARIAN-CANCER - A GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY GROUP-STUDY
    HOSKINS, WJ
    BUNDY, BN
    THIGPEN, JT
    OMURA, GA
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 1992, 47 (02) : 159 - 166
  • [6] HOSKINS WJ, 1993, J CLIN ONCOL, V11, P223
  • [7] NEIJT JP, 1984, LANCET, V2, P594
  • [8] OMURA G, 1986, CANCER, V57, P1725, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19860501)57:9<1725::AID-CNCR2820570903>3.0.CO
  • [9] 2-J
  • [10] RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE PLUS CISPLATIN WITH OR WITHOUT DOXORUBICIN IN OVARIAN-CARCINOMA - A GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY GROUP-STUDY
    OMURA, GA
    BUNDY, BN
    BEREK, JS
    CURRY, S
    DELGADO, G
    MORTEL, R
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1989, 7 (04) : 457 - 465